Posted by galtin on September 30, 2001, at 9:04:35
In reply to Re: Evil? , posted by tina on September 28, 2001, at 8:03:55
> I'm just finding Bush's speeches to be the same words and phrases over and over again. He says nothing new. Someone above said something about it being just to rally the troops and I think that's right. Bush says evil in a cavalier way. Some say a man who beats his dog is evil. SOme say a parent who abuses a child is evil. Serial killers are evil. I think this word is bandied about far too commonly and it was a poor choice on Bush's part. I don't believe evil has a set definition, just a personal interpretation. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and his followers believe the US and it's allies to be the evil ones.
> The word was a poor choice, plain and simple and I think Bush should fire his speech writer.
>
> > The word evil sounds very diabolical, as though there is such a thing as an evil force or spirit. Being the Atheist that I am I see it more as cruelty based on our deep animal instincts and our need for survival. The USA may be considered one of the cruelest nations of all, with a few exceptions, by most of the world. Though I am not religious, (perhaps more of a gnostic) I think the roots of most cruelty can be found in the seven deadly sins, again purely from a biologocal, anthropological viewpoint. With this in mind we are are guilty to some degree.
Mitch- I doubt that Bush devotes many hours to pondering the concept of evil. But his use of the word probably captured the feelings of many, if not most, of his fellow country persons. The use of the term, whether it has cosmic overtones or not, presumes common ethical standards (against murder, in this case). This presumes intentionality and the choice between good and bad. Can acts committed in the grip of "animal instincts" be intentional? Are predators in the wild (lions,tigers, bears) evil?Bush to the side, calling terrorists evil does not get America off the hook for its many misdeeds, though the many thousands of innocent civilian deaths that the US has purposefully caused does not get much of an airing at times like this. And ultimately the word's use depends on the existence of ultimate, "objective" values (truth), which is a tough claim to defend outside a religious/spiritual framework.
Most of the original gnostics were religious; many believed themselves Christians even though they were pronounced heretics (now there's a scary word). The gnostics believed that the entire material world is evil (bit of a value judgment there) and that the spark of right knowledge could release the soul from its physical captivity in the body. But if physicality is itself evil, it doesn't leave much room for an ethical yardstick that distinguishes the actions of terrorists from those of the fallen firefighters. Evil may have connotations of a "cosmic force," but if you chuck it overboard, where does that leave us? And putting the theoretical to the side, If evil is "personal interpretation," then we are in a hell of a mess
galtin
poster:galtin
thread:11828
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010927/msgs/11941.html